Michael Geist

Latest Posts

FON Wireless Router by nrkbeta (CC BY-SA 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/4rhm3z

The Battle Over the Future of Broadband in Canada: Mayors Tory & Watson v. Nenshi

Cities across the country have long emphasized the importance to the local economy of creating innovation hubs. There are different roads toward that goal, however, as shown by competing submissions from the mayors of Toronto and Calgary in a high-stakes battle over the future of broadband Internet services. Toronto mayor John Tory and Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson sided with large telecom companies, while Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi emphasized the importance of open networks and more robust competition.

My weekly technology law column (Toronto Star version, homepage version) notes that the submissions stem from a crucial ruling issued by Canada’s telecom regulator in July. Hoping to foster a more competitive market and having used various “open access” policy measures to give independent Internet providers a chance to compete in the Internet services market, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decided to extend those rules to fast fibre connection services.

January 12, 2016 — 8 comments — Columns

Fotografía Oficial al interior del Cosmovitral Jardín Botánico by Presidencia de la República Mexicana (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/kgu5oW

The Trouble with the TPP, Day 6: The Price of Entry

An examination of the Trouble with the TPP copyright provisions would not be complete without discussing how Canada reformed its law before entering the negotiations as part of the price of admission to the TPP talks (prior posts include Day 1: US Blocks Balancing Provisions, Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks, Day 3: Copyright Term Extension, Day 4: Copyright Notice and Takedown Rules, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. Users “May”). The pre-TPP reforms must surely be considered part of the cost of the agreement even if proponents now argue that the TPP is consistent with (the reformed) Canadian law.

Canada was not an initial participant in the TPP negotiations. The Harper government began working on entry into the TPP in 2009, leading to a formal request for participation in the negotiations in 2011. The U.S. held a consultation on Canada’s proposed entry into the TPP a year later, resulting in the IIPA, the lead lobby group for the movie, music, and software industry, urging the U.S. government to keep Canada out of the negotiations until a copyright bill was passed that satisfied U.S. expectations. The Canadian government responded by promising to pass the law and noting that it had also signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). The U.S. demands had an enormous impact on the contents of the Canadian copyright bill, particularly the retention of restrictive digital lock rules that were at the very top of the U.S. priority list.

January 11, 2016 — 4 comments — News

Draft Marrakesh Treaty submitted by the Drafting Committee to the Plenary, 27 June 2013 by EIFL (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/f25S8C

The Trouble with the TPP, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. Users “May”

The Trouble with the TPP series concludes the first week with a look at how the TPP treats the interests of rights holders and users completely differently (prior posts include Day 1: US Blocks Balancing Provisions, Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks, Day 3: Copyright Term Extension, Day 4: Copyright Notice and Takedown Rules). I noted in the discussion on Internet providers that the most telling provision comes at the very end, where the parties recognize the importance of taking into account the impacts on rights holders and Internet providers. Internet users and the general public do not merit a mention as their interests do not seem to count for the purposes of a notice-and-takedown system for copyright works on the Internet.

The absence of users in the Internet provider section is not an anomaly. Throughout the TPP IP chapter, there are two distinct approaches. Where rights holders interests are concerned, the requirements are typically mandatory (ie. “shall”). Where the issue involves user rights or access, the requirements are not requirements, but rather non-mandated provisions (ie. “may”). For example, consider the international IP treaty obligations in the TPP. Article 18.7 identifies nine international IP treaties and protocols that are all requirements for TPP members (Patent Cooperation Treaty, Paris Convention, Berne Convention, Madrid Protocol, Budapest Treaty, Singapore Treaty, UPOV 1991, WCT, and WPPT). What about the Marrakesh Treaty to facilitate access to published works for the blind and visually impaired? It is relegated to a footnote with no obligation to implement:

January 8, 2016 — 10 comments — News

copyright takedown notice by Andrew Allingham (CC BY 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/bw9zNC

The Trouble with the TPP, Day 4: Copyright Notice and Takedown Rules

The Trouble with the TPP series focuses today on the TPP’s effort to regulate how Internet providers and hosts address allegations of copyright infringement on their networks and sites (prior posts include Day 1: US Blocks Balancing Provisions, Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks, Day 3: Copyright Term Extension). The goals of the U.S. and Canadian government in the negotiations were clear from the outset: the U.S. wanted to export its DMCA notice-and-takedown system to the rest of the TPP, while Canada wanted to preserve its newly created notice-and-notice approach (more on the notice-and-notice system, which does a better job of striking a balance and preserving user privacy, here). In fact, Canada rushed through the notice-and-notice system without regulations (causing major problems of misleading notices) in order to argue that it should not be required to adopt the U.S. approach.

The end result is a compromise that allows Canada to maintain notice-and-notice, but no other TPP country can adopt it in order to comply with the ISP liability and notice rules. The Canadian rules can be found in Annex 18-E, which states that the standard TPP ISP rules do not apply to a country that meets the conditions of the annex “as from the date of agreement in principle of this Agreement.” Since that date is now long passed (October 4, 2015), no other TPP country can implement the notice-and-notice system to meet its TPP obligations. It should be noted that Chile, which objected to the special treatment for Canada, obtained a similar exception for its system based on the U.S. – Chile Free Trade Agreement in Annex 18-F.

January 7, 2016 — 5 comments — News

Gutenberg Galaxy by Marshall McLuhan by no_typographic_man (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) https://flic.kr/p/8hhvER

The Trouble with the TPP, Day 3: Copyright Term Extension

The Trouble with the TPP series continues with one of the most high profile copyright concerns associated with the TPP: mandatory copyright term extension (prior posts include Day 1: US Blocks Balancing Provisions, Day 2: Locking in Digital Locks). The term of copyright in Canada is presently life of the author plus an additional 50 years, a term consistent with the international standard set by the Berne Convention. This is also the standard in half of the TPP countries with Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Brunei, and Vietnam also providing protection for life plus 50 years.

From a Canadian perspective, the issue of extending the term of copyright was raised on several prior occasions and consistently rejected by governments and trade negotiators. For example, term extension was discussed during the 2009 national copyright consultation, but the Canadian government wisely decided against it. Further, the European Union initially demanded that Canada extend the term of copyright in the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, but that too was effectively rebuffed with the issue of term removed from the final text.

January 6, 2016 — 7 comments — News